fetch_evidence_available_actions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It details the return structure (actions list with fields and optional error) and implies read-only behavior by stating 'get actions available.' It does not contradict any annotations, as none are present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with an overview, workflow advice, and clearly separated Args/Returns sections. It is relatively concise given the detail provided, though the workflow advice could be slightly trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the 4 parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's inputs, outputs, and usage context. It also references sibling tools (like 'execute_action' and other retrieval tools) to complete the picture.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% coverage, but the description lists all four parameters (assessment_name, control_number, control_alias, evidence_name) with types and explicitly marks them as required, compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get actions available on evidence for given evidence name.' It specifies the required parameters and distinguishes from similar fetch tools by focusing on evidence-level actions, though it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like fetch_available_control_actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit workflow guidance: if parameters are missing, use other tools to retrieve them; after fetching, ask user to confirm and then use 'execute_action'. This clearly indicates when to use this tool and the subsequent steps, though it lacks explicit 'when not to use' statements.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.